Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA99-019 CIT _ OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman May 4, 1999 Mr. J. Steve Harer Bryn Mawr Properties, Inc. 11326 Rainier Ave S Seattle, WA 98178 Re: Blueberry Hill Rezone FILE No. LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H Dear Mr. Harer: The Examiner's Report and Decision on the above referenced matter, which was issued on March 22, 1999, was not appealed within the 14-day period established by ordinance. Therefore, this matter is considered final by this office and the file on your application is being transmitted to the City Clerk as of this date. Please feel free to contact this office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely, -1-13 a \ 152144-r---- Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK/mm cc: Peter Rosen Sandi Seeger, Development Services 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King ) MARILYN MOSES , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 22nd day of March,1999, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: U C e _ j SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 9-2na day of raa tX � , 1999. TQ.t.t.111.. Notary Public i�and^ for the State of Washington, h- residing at AUtaL , therein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Blueberry Hill Rezone LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H LUA99-019,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT March 22, 1999 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT,RECOMMENDATION AND DECISIONS APPELLANT: Steve Harer Appeal of ERC's Determination for Blueberry Hill Rezone File No.: LUA99-019,AAD APPLICANT: Steve Harer Blueberry Hill Rezone File No.: LUA-98-171,MHP,R,V-H LOCATION: 2800 NE 3rd Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To rezone from R-10 to RMH to establish 69 unit mobile home park on 7.77 acres. Applicant requests variances from lot and street width and RV parking requirements. SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appealed ERC's mitigation measures No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES: SEPA APPEAL The following minutes are a summary of the February 23, 1999 appeal hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,February 23, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibit was entered into the record for the appeal: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow appeal file,LUA99-019,AAD, containing the appeal, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Parties present: Representing Appellant Representing City of Renton Steve Harer Larry Warren Bryn Mawr Properties 1055 S Grady Way 11326 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98178 Blueberry Hill Rezone Appeal and Rezone Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-019,AAD LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H March 22, 1999 Page 2 The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous, and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. Steve Harer, appellant herein, stated that he was appealing the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) mitigation measures 5, 6 and 7 which are payment of traffic, fire and parks mitigation fees, on the grounds that he is moving an existing low-income mobile home community within the City. Regarding condition 8 which addresses the road width variance and the requirement for a sidewalk on one side of the street, Mr. Harer stated there are other communities in King County successfully using the 5 foot painted walkway as part of the road. The existing mobile home community has road widths that range from 20 to 25 feet that have been there since the park opened and have had no problems. The new proposed community will have widths that are 10 feet wider than that. Regarding Condition 9 pertaining to screening of the community, Mr. Harer proposed taking the fence from that originally proposed to behind the property line of the mobile homes themselves. He further appealed the requirement for RV parking, stating that there are several storage areas available within a 25 mile radius to provide this storage. Sheikh Hasan, P.O. Box 2019, Ocala, Florida 34478, appellant's engineer herein, stated that City code required seven RV parking spaces for this park. In order to maximize available space for mobile homes, he suggested the use of the available nearby storage lots to meet this need. Larry Warren, questioned the standing of this appellant regarding Conditions 5, 6 and 7, and that if any credit was to be granted, it would go to the buyer of the current facility on Lake Washington or previous owner and not be transportable. City Council mandates the mitigation policies and this issue should be addressed to that body. Additionally,there is no proof, requirement or necessity that the residents of Lake View Terrace move to this new site. With respect to Condition No. 8,the City has requirements concerning sidewalks, regardless of King County's set of codes. There are legitimate safety reasons why sidewalks should be separated from streets rather than simply having a painted line. With regard to No. 9, Mr. Warren stated that the applicant and City are saying the same thing regarding landscaping--the applicant is requesting that the fence be taken from the property line and put behind the homes. The condition regarding RV parking should be addressed to the City Council as the code has stated this as a requirement. As a practical matter,there can be no guarantee there are not going to be RV's. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The appeal hearing closed at 9:20 a.m. SEPA APPEAL FINDINGS.CONCLUSIONS &DECISION 1. The appellant, J. Steve Harer, filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M) issued by the ERC. Mr. Harer, hereinafter the appellant, filed the appeal on February 12, 1999 and the appeal was filed in a timely manner. Blueberry Hill Rezone Appeal and Rezone Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-019,AAD LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H March 22, 1999 Page 3 2. The appellant who is also the applicant for the underlying land use application objected to a number of the mitigation measures or conditions that were imposed by the ERC. 3. The appellant proposes developing a 69-lot manufactured home park on approximately 7.77 acres. The proposal would require a reclassification of the property from its current R-10(Residential, 10 units per acre)to RMH(Residential Manufactured Homes). In addition,the applicant has requested variances to allow lots of less than the required dimensions, narrower than required streets, and to eliminate parking for recreational vehicles(RV parking regulations). 4. For a complete description of the subject site,zoning and surrounding area, as well as a description of the proposal, see the second portion of this report included below. 5. The appellant had four major concerns regarding the conditions imposed by the ERC. The appeal is enumerated below: • "I appeal#5,6, & 7 on the grounds that I am moving an existing low-income resident mobile home community in the City of Renton. This community has already paid taxes and fees to the City for approximately 40 years. These taxes have come to the city from both real estate taxes and personal property taxes from the mobile homes themselves. These existing mobile home sites are in the city and are not providing new residents per se. The City is getting impact fees on 187 new units that are replacing these 69 units. • I appeal item #8 as there are communities in King County successfully using the 5-foot painted walkway successfully. The existing community roads range from 20' widths to 25' widths and have worked successfully the past 40 years The new community will have roadways as described that are 10' wider. A separated concrete walkway will subtract from the tenant's yard and give a more squeezed look to the lots. • I appeal item #9 regarding screening the mobile home community so that people driving up Renton Avenue won't have to look at this affordable housing community. I propose then that the fence be taken from the property line and put behind the homes. • I appeal item#12 as this is a management issue that is handled by the rules and regulations and not a covenant with the land. There are storage facilities nearby. RV storage will not be allowed in this community." 6. Following are the conditions of the ERC which the appellant has challenged: "5. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$488 per new single family residence,for an estimated total of$33,672. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to issuance of construction permits. 6. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at $24,892.50. This fee is payable prior to issuance of construction permits. Blueberry Hill Rezone Appeal and Rezone Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-019,AAD LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H March 22, 1999 Page 4 7. The applicant shall pay a Park's Department Mitigation Fee of$530.76 per new single family residential lot. The recreation area may be applied toward a reduction of the parks mitigation fee, credited up to a maximum of one-third of the total mitigation fee required,with the approval of the Parks Department. The required parks mitigation fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of construction permits. 8. The applicant is requesting a variance from standards of the RMH zone to allow a pedestrian walk to be included within the 30 foot road width. If this variance is approved,the applicant shall modify the site plan to provide sidewalks on one side of the street, separated from the roadway, in order to ensure adequate pedestrian safety. A revised site plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of construction permits. 9. The proposed fence along the west property boundary is approximately 30 feet lower in elevation from the middle, flat portion of the site. The proposed fencing would not function to screen views of the manufactured home park from NE 3rd Street, as is required by the code. To reduce potential aesthetic impacts of the proposal,the applicant should provide fence or landscape screening at the same elevation as the manufactured homes. 12. If the variance from the required RV parking is approved,the applicant shall record a restrictive covenant that every new tenant who owns an RV must show proof of having an alternative, off-site parking space for their RV. The restrictive covenant shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division and the City Attorney prior to recording. The restrictive covenant shall be recorded prior to finalization of construction permits." 7. As noted, Conditions 5, 6 and 7 related to mitigation fees were challenged together. They were challenged on the grounds that this manufacturing housing park would be replacing an existing park and therefore, a monetary offset should be available. The rationale is that removing the housing units at the existing park and moving them to this park creates no new impacts on traffic, fire or parks. 8. The City responded that while such offsets may be available,they are generally applied to redevelopment at the original location. In other words,the existing park will be replaced by new housing on the original site and that any offsets would be available to the developers who are redeveloping that original site. 9. If a road width variance were approved,the ERC required that the applicant provide a separated sidewalk within the 30 foot roadway. The challenge to Condition 8 was based on standards used by King County which allow the paint delineation to visually set off sidewalks rather than having a physically separated sidewalk. In addition,the appellant noted that the current mobile home park has a 20 foot roadway which is narrower than proposed for this development and that a sidewalk will reduce the effective yard space for the new units. 10. The City countered that the King County standards are immaterial since the City has its own specific code requirements and that safety is a preeminent interest in requiring a separate sidewalk. 11. The ERC required that the screening fence be relocated to a position where it would serve as effective screen,which is just west of the actual mobile homes, rather than at the lower elevation at the west edge of the proposed open space/recreation area. Blueberry Hill Rezone Appeal and Rezone Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-019,AAD LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H March 22, 1999 Page 5 12. It appears that the appellant and City agreed on this condition's intent during the course of the hearing. 13. The ERC imposed a condition that would impose a covenant requiring tenants to show proof of off-site RV parking. The condition was apparently intended to prevent RV's from being parked about the site and potentially blocking emergency access as well as fulfilling the Code's requirement that RV parking be provided for manufactured home parks. 14. The appellant objected to the covenant for RV storage, claiming that this is merely a park management issue and that RV parking or storage is available at off-site locations. 15. The last three conditions imposed by the ERC all relate to requirements found in the Manufactured Park Housing provisions. In two, the separate sidewalk and RV storage conditions, the applicant has applied for variances from the standards. As noted regarding the landscaping/fencing requirement,the parties reached agreement. 16. The appellant argues that because many residents of the proposed park will come from the existing Lake Terrace park,there is a need to keep the current proposal affordable. Further,that they do not have RV's, and are accustomed to the current conditions with small lots, narrow roads and limited sidewalks. 17. In arguments put forward by the City, they also noted that there is no guarantee that the new park will be solely occupied by the former Lake Terrace residents,that conditions change and that new standards and safety issues take precedence over the appellant's objections. The City is concerned that enforcement of the RV prohibition will fall to the City and RV's could block emergency access. 18. All Findings from the Site Plan decision are incorporated into this decision. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore,the determination of the Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2. The Determination of Significance and the mitigation measures imposed by the ERC in this case are entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is'clearly erroneous'when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore,the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below,the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the Blueberry Hill Rezone Appeal and Rezone Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-019,AAD LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H March 22, 1999 Page environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore,made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious"test is generally applied when a determination of significance(DS)is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document,an Environmental Impact Statement. Similarly,attempts to remove or modify any conditions imposed to mitigate environmental impacts would be subject to strict scrutiny and the appellant would have to clearly show those conditions are wrong. 4. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the actions of the ERC were erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. There is a definite burden in overturning an administrative determination and it requires more than a minimal presentation and mere objections to the conditions imposed to offset the environmental impacts of a proposal. 5. The appellant failed to introduce much in the way of factual evidence to show that the City's determination was erroneous. In the absence of such fact,compelling or otherwise, it is extremely difficult to agree with the appellant that a mistake was made. Even using a relaxed standard,the appellant has failed to persuade this office that the determination was based on other than a thorough analysis. 6. As noted by the City,the proposal would develop a second, separate parcel in a different neighborhood of the City with 69 new housing units. While the appellant's arguments that the new park is merely replacing an existing park and the same or generally the same residents will merely be moving have an initial appeal, it is clear that new housing units will be created and those housing units will have the impacts on traffic, parks and fire services. The appellant's approach is an intriguing and novel one,but once scrutinized fails. Since the original park will be replaced by housing at that same original location,any housing units developed offsite,as in the instant case,that is, in a locale different from the original site will have impacts that must be mitigated. The current proposal will be developing an entirely different site in an entirely different location of the City. The ERC was correct in imposing the various mitigation fees. 7. The appellant really did not offer any overwhelming reasons why the other conditions should be modified other than disagreement with their intent or approach. Disagreement is not sufficient justification to overturn an administrative decision if reasonable persons might merely reach alternative conclusions based on the same facts. 8. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter,unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. No such conviction results from hearing this case. Therefore,the determination below must be affirmed. DECISION: The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is affirmed and the appeal is denied. MINUTES: MANUFACTURED HOME PARK PERMIT.REZONE AND VARIANCE The following exhibits were entered into the record for the manufactured home park permit,rezone,and variances hearing: Blueberry Hill Rezone Appeal and Rezone Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-019,AAD LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H March 22, 1999 Page 7 Exhibit No. 1: Yellow land use file, LUA98- Exhibit No.2: Vicinity map 141,PP,V,R,containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary site plan Exhibit No. 4: Landscape plan Exhibit No. 5: Yellow appeal file, LUA99-019,AAD Exhibit No. 6: Grading plan I (by reference) Exhibit No. 7: Grading plan II Exhibit No. 8: Alternate street and sidewalk plan The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by PETER ROSEN, Project Manager, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The applicant requests a rezone,a mobile home park permit, three variances, and environmental review in order to construct a 69 lot manufactured home park. Of the 69 lots, 61 are approximately 3,000 square feet in area and the remaining 8 lots are larger. The access is proposed via two driveways off NE 3rd Street and there is a 30-foot wide internal loop road. The minimum park size criteria of two acres is met, as well as the density requirement at 8.88 units per acre. A typical lot layout is space for a single wide manufactured home and driveway parking for two vehicles in a tandem formation. All the lot sizes meet the minimum standard of 3,000 square feet. The narrow lot layout is not conducive to optimize privacy between the lots, and would be difficult to provide landscaping in the side yards. Minimal landscaping is provided in the front of each lot. The rear yard of the lot can provide the required concrete patio. The proposal includes a 6-foot high cedar perimeter fence around the entire site with landscaping along the frontage of NE 3rd. The applicant is proposing a one-acre recreation area along the western boundary of the site. The topography of the west row of lots slopes down and the applicant is proposing to fill this portion of the site for the homes,thereby creating an approximate 20 to 30 foot grade difference between the existing top of the slope and the recreation area. The applicant has not provided details regarding playground or recreational uses and there is concern about accessibility to the area for residents. The property is a former commercial gravel pit which has been filled,therefore creating a flat wide area. Off the site to both south and west, it slopes steeply to the floor of the pit which is an elevation change of approximately 100 feet. In the floor of the pit there is a proposed manufactured home park. A geotech study has been prepared for this proposal and describes the fill material on the site as loose to medium dense and debris-laden. The test pits basically encountered these fill soils to the maximum explored depth of 17 feet. The geotech report concludes that the existing fill soils are unsuitable for permanent structures for permanent foundations; however, it does say that they may be used to support light manufactured homes which would allow for re-leveling. The ERC in reviewing the geotech report did propose a mitigation measure that requires the applicant to record a restrictive covenant that any releveling of foundations that would result from soil settlement would be at the expense of the land property owner, not the individual tenants. The applicant appealed several mitigation measures imposed by the ERC. The remaining conditions imposed by the ERC include: (1)applicant follow the recommendations of the geotech report regarding general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and slope regrading and pavement; (2)that the grading activities be supervised by a geotech consultant; (3)that a detailed site grading plan be submitted with construction permits;(4)temporary erosion control be installed and maintained for duration of project. A further mitigation measure requires that if the lot width variance is approved,the applicant record a covenant that tenants would Blueberry Hill Rezone Appeal and Rezone Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-019,AAD LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H March 22, 1999 Page 8 receive information regarding setback requirements and prohibitions on building within the required setback areas. Regarding the rezone,this site is presently zoned R-10, Residential 10 dwelling units per acre, and the applicant is requesting a rezone to Residential Manufactured Homes(RMH). The R-10 zone would allow for manufactured home park, but slightly different than what could be established in the RMH zone. In the R-10 zone platting is required so the manufactured homes would be on individual lots. The code also allows for designated manufactured homes which are basically double wide manufactured homes. The various differences between the two zones,their development standards, and the rezone approval criteria were discussed. In terms of the rezone approval criteria, at least one of the following circumstances shall be found to apply: (1)that substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning. In 1993 with adoption of the Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan and area-wide rezoning,the subject property was designated Residential Options on the CP with the corresponding R-10 zoning. Previous to 1993 the site was designated Medium Density Multi-Family Residential on the CP with Light Industrial zoning. There was no evidence that the RMH zoning was considered for the subject property at the time of the rezone in 1993. The Cedar Crest Manufactured Home Park adjacent to this site requested RMH zoning in 1993 and it was approved. An adjacent site was considered at that time, but the subject site was not. The RMH zone is for a specific purpose and is most commonly imposed with a specific project proposal rather than as part of a City-wide process. The second criteria is that the property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the CP and conditions have been met which indicate that the change is appropriate. There are no mentions of policies that would support a zoning reclassification to the RMH zone in the RO policies of the land use element of the CP. However, in the zoning code under the RMH zone it does state that RMH zoning may be permitted in areas designated for Single Family-4 in the CP which is the equivalent of the RO designation. It was determined that the proposed RMH zoning is consistent with the CP designation of RO and therefore a CP amendment is not required with the subject rezone application. The proposed rezone would further the stated CP objective of providing cost-efficient housing and providing infill. The final rezone criteria is that since the previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. The major change in the area has been the approval of the adjacent Cedar Crest manufactured home park. The major difference between the two manufactured home parks is that Cedar Crest would be providing the manufactured homes on site rather than leasing the individual spaces as proposed here. Regarding the variances proposed,the first variance deals with lot width. The RMH zone requires a 40 foot lot width for interior lots and 50 feet for corner lots. Sixty of the lots are proposed with a 37 foot lot width and the corner lots are proposed at 45 feet. The second variance is for street width --the code requires a 30 foot wide street and a 5 foot concrete sidewalk along one side of the street. The applicant is proposing to have the entire road width be 30 feet inclusive of a painted sidewalk on one side. The third variance is from the code-required screened parking area for RV's, campers and boats at a ratio of one space per ten lots which would be seven spaces. The applicant is requesting a variance and has provided no parking for RV's on site. The various criteria to be met for a variance were discussed in detail. Applicant is providing affordable housing for the Blueberry Hill Rezone Appeal and Rezone Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-019,AAD LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H March 22, 1999 Page 9 relocation of residents and meeting the code requirements would increase development costs, reduce the number of lots and would result in higher monthly rental costs to future residents. Staffs opinion and recommendation is that there are no special circumstances of the subject property being the size, shape and topography that impose a hardship on the applicant to meet the code requirements. The applicant has justified it more based on the economic needs of keeping the development costs low and providing for maximum number of lots to keep the costs low for future residents. In addition the ERC and Fire Department have expressed concerns about the variance requests in terms of the lot width with the increased risk of fire spreading between adjacent homes. Because existing mobile home parks were approved under previously adopted standards,this does not justify the requested variances. Furthermore, the variances apply to almost all the proposed lots and major features of the project and the extent of these variances would not constitute a minimum variance. Staff recommends approval of the rezone and manufactured home park permit,but recommends denial of the requested variances. For purposes of the manufactured home park permit, staff recommends the following: (1)compliance with the ERC mitigation measures; (2) submittal of a street lighting plan, subject to approval of Development Services; (3)applicant provide further information of the proposed recreation area to demonstrate how the area would be accessed by residents and to provide details of improvements as a playground recreation area, subject to approval of Development Services. Sheikh Hasan, P.O. Box 2019,Ocala, Florida 34478, engineer for applicant herein, addressed the recreation area. Applicant's proposal is a 14 to 20 foot wide walking trail along the west side with a recreation area in the southwest corner with a barbecue pit and picnic benches. The access will probably be from the northwest corner. The slope would be 2 to 1 which is recommended by the geotech report. There is no final grading plan at this time, nor is the plan for the recreation area complete. This whole park is designed on the premise of providing affordable housing and to relocate the people from the existing mobile home park. Regarding the request for a lot width variance,the City has a criteria of 40 foot lot width, but that is based on a double-wide mobile home. The 37 foot lot width applicant is requesting is for a single wide 14 foot home. Mr. Hasan suggested that if a variance is not granted regarding the sidewalk within the street width of 30 feet, that the 5 foot sidewalk be within the front yard setback. Mr. Hasan further stated that it is not economical to put in the required seven RV parking spaces. If it was a bigger park that required a lot of RV spaces,then it might be justifiable to put in an on-site RV storage area. Regarding guest parking,the City is anticipating some parking on the street within the park. If you have a 30 foot street,you can allow parking on one side and still have a drive lane. Steve Harer, 11326 Rainier Ave. S, Seattle, Washington 98172, applicant herein., stated that he has 27 years of experience in mobile home communities, including building, renting and selling. They are trying to provide a spot for the 70 Lake Terrace residents who still need spaces. Requests have also been received from other mobile home parks in the county. Applicant has targeted $350 as rent on the spaces; if the number of sites is reduced,then rents will have to be increased. Ken Spencer, 11661 SE 56th, Bellevue, Washington 98006, Executive Director of Manufactured Housing Communities of Washington, stated that the applicant is trying to keep affordable housing stock when normally Blueberry Hill Rezone Appeal and Rezone Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-019,AAD LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H March 22, 1999 Page 10 these people would have no option. Anything that can be done to keep affordable housing in the City is to be applauded. Bob Murray, Trammell Crow, 4010 Lake Washington Blvd., Kirkland, Washington 98033, stated that he also supports this project and has been working with the sellers of the Lake Terrace Park to find relocation opportunities for the existing people at the park. He stated that very few have moved out of the park at this time and that they are probably hanging their hopes on the potential approval of this project. David Halinen, 10500 NE 8th Street, #1900,Bellevue, Washington 98004, spoke on behalf of River Point Associates, a partnership interested in acquisition and development of property in the general area of the subject site. His client opposes the proposal in its overall nature--the rezone,the particular project proposal as well as the request for variances. Mr. Halinen highlighted several areas of concern regarding rezone criteria not met such as meeting the various RO policies, and significant or material change since the last land use analysis. He pointed out that there is a large MHP zoned area in this portion of town, including the Cedar Crest site, and there would be a detrimental over-concentration of this type of zoning in this area. He also questioned the conclusion that the elimination of Lake Terrace Mobile Home Park is a changed circumstance for the subject proposal. Mr. Halinen was also concerned about the proposed grade for the project in relation to the designated recreation area. Mr. Halinen concluded that special circumstances do not exist to grant the variances, that this was not the minimum variance to accomplish its purpose, and requested that the rezone,the mobile home park permit and variances be denied. Chuck Duffy, Renton Fire Department, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055,testified that the Fire Department is opposed to all three variances because of reduced fire safety of future occupants. The plan is to move existing trailers, many of which appear to be pre-1977, a significant date having to do with built-in fire protection. The setback requirement is particularly important to reduce fire spread from trailer to trailer. The older trailers burn very rapidly once they are ignited and their exterior surfaces do not meet the normal building codes in housing requirements. Fire department access does not mean only access, but emergency work space in the street in front of the potential scene to be able to work. Regarding the RV space requirements, experience has shown it creates a code enforcement problem for the City. Neil Watts, Development Services Division, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055,testified that Public Works does not support the variances,particularly regarding the narrower street and alternate use of sidewalks. Pedestrian safety is a key consideration and that this variance would potentially have impacts on pedestrian safety for this new community. Parking will be limited to one side of the street if the street is 30 feet wide; if the variance is granted, parking would not be allowed on either side of the street. Doug iobkirk, P.O. Box 22167, Seattle, Washington 98122-0167,Director of Manufactured Housing Community Preservationists, stated that older mobile homes are readily replaced over time by newer homes as it can be quickly and economically done. Regarding the zoning change,the site seems uniquely suited to manufactured housing based on its inability to utilize permanent foundations,and he encouraged the rezone to accommodate this park. In helping people relocate from closing parks,he stated it is difficult for residents to find sites for their homes. Blueberry Hill Rezone Appeal and Rezone Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-019,AAD LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H March 22, 1999 Page 11 Mr. Harer further responded that appearance of the mobile home park was important and that parking had been planned alongside to keep a neat appearance. The applicant also stated that they could work with the City to achieve the necessary recreation area. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 12:15 p.m. MANUFACTURED HOME PARK PERMIT,VARIANCES AND REZONE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,DECISION&RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Steve Harer, filed a request for approval of a rezone, a manufactured home park permit and variances from provisions of the manufactured home park requirements. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance- Mitigated(DNS-M)for the subject proposal. The applicant appealed certain mitigation measures imposed by the ERC. A hearing on the appeal was combined with the hearing for this land use action. That decision accompanies this report. The appeal was denied. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 2800 NE 3rd Street. The subject site is located along the south side of NE 3rd just west of where it merges into NE 4th Street and its intersection with Jefferson Avenue NE. The King County Shop site is located east of the subject site. 6. The subject site is generally rectangular, although its north property line jogs slightly and angles toward the northeast where it follows the NE 3rd right-of-way. The subject site is approximately 7.77 acres in area. The parcel is approximately 452 feet wide by approximately 837 feet long. 7. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1549 enacted in June 1956. 8. The subject site is classified R-10 (Residential/10 dwelling units per acre). It received this zoning with the adoption of Ordinance 4405 enacted in June 1993. 9. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of residential options, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 10. The applicant proposes establishing a mobile or manufactured home park on the subject site. The applicant indicated an intent to provide mobile home pads for residents of the Lake Terrace Mobile Home Park. That park is being redeveloped with an apartment complex and the residents are being displaced. Apparently, many of those units are known as single-wide mobile homes and do not need • Blueberry Hill Rezone Appeal and Rezone Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-019,AAD LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H March 22, 1999 Page 12 large building pads. The applicant proposes catering to single-wide units. There is nothing in the record which would restrict the use or tenancy of the subject site to only those former residents or any residents from any particular income group. Single-wide mobile homes are apparently still manufactured. 11. The applicant proposes using the regulations found in Section 4-2-110 to establish a manufactured home park for 69 units. While the current R-10 zoning permits mobile home parks,the R-10 zoning requires both platted lots and specific home styles, generally double-wide homes. The applicant proposes a more traditional leased(non-platted)mobile home pad development and accommodating mobile homes that are single-wide and older styles. 12. The applicant has proposed reclassifying the subject site from R-10 to RMH(Residential Manufactured Homes) in order to establish the leased-lot mobile home park and to accommodate the single-wide homes that are not permitted in the R-10 zone. 13. The applicant has proposed lots that are smaller than code mandates, internal roads of less than the required width and eliminating the required recreational vehicle(RV)parking. The Code requires internal lots to be 40 feet wide and corner lots to be 50 feet wide. The applicant proposes 37 foot wide internal lots and 45 foot wide corner lots. The applicant has proposed a 30 foot wide road with a sidewalk incorporated into that width, whereas Code requires a 30 foot wide road and separate 5 foot sidewalk. The Code requires RV/boat parking at a ratio of one such stall for each 10 lots or 7 RV stalls, whereas the applicant proposes providing no such stalls. 14. The subject site was part of a commercial gravel pit that has been refilled and graded. The easternmost portion of the site is generally level. The site slopes downward on the west although the applicant proposes additional leveling to provide level pads and a recreation area along that margin of the site. 15. A geotechnical report indicates that the fill material is probably suitable for supporting the relatively light mobile homes. The pit has been filled with loose to medium dense fill material that is debris- laden. Differential settlement of the site will require periodic releveling which can be more easily accomplished under and around mobile homes than permanent structures. The ERC imposed a condition that costs associated with such work be the park owner's responsibility and not the homes' residents. 16. An open space area would be created in the western 60 feet of the site. The residential lots would generally be arranged in a U-shaped fashion around the remainder of the site and in a central block with back-to-back lots. The lots would begin with Lot 1 at the northwest corner of the site and run down the west side, across the south and up the east side. A small block of five lots would be located in the north central portion of the site and a larger interior block of 26 lots would be located in the center of the site. 17. As noted above,the applicant has proposed that most of the interior lots be approximately 37 feet wide as opposed to the 40 required. Corner lots would be 45 feet wide as opposed to the 50 feet required. The lots would be approximately 81 feet long and meet the required 75 foot lot length. The narrower lots are intended to accommodate single-wide units including some of the existing homes found at Lake Terrace Mobile Home Park. 18. The proposed recreation area is approximately 20 to 30 feet below the grade of the rest of the subject site. It will be approximately 1.02 acre or 13.13 percent, meeting the required minimum recreation area Blueberry Hill Rezone Appeal and Rezone Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-019,AAD LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H March 22, 1999 Page 13 of 10 percent. Staff noted that the grade differential might create access problems or reduce the useful areas for recreation. No definitive plans for the nature of the recreation area have been provided. 19. Staff notes that the proposed lots would not accommodate the larger double-wide units now more prevalent. There appears to be insufficient room for the required side yards and driveway and parking pad. 20. The applicant will be providing tandem parking for two vehicles at each residential site. 21. It appears that there is sufficient area to accommodate the required 125 square foot patio at each site. Five foot sideyards are required and provided,but as staff noted there is not much room for any privacy screening between units. Landscaping is required on individual lots but is only provided in the front yard areas. 22. The site will be regraded to level the western end of the subject site. This would provide for a relatively level, consistent area for the residential portion of the site. 23. The development as proposed would provide a net density of approximately 8.88 lots per acre whereas the range permitted is between 8 and 10 units per acre. 24. The smallest of the 61 lots would be 3,000 square feet in area meeting that code requirement. 25. The applicant has proposed a circular roadway with two driveways providing access to NE 3rd. The applicant has requested a variance to accommodate the five foot sidewalk within the 30 foot driving surface. The sidewalk would be delineated by a painted line. The code requires a separate five foot sidewalk. 26. The applicant provides the required 10 feet of landscaped setback from NE 3rd Street. 27. The Fire Department is concerned that the narrower lots present a fire hazard due to the narrower separation between units and since older, less fire resistant units might be moved to the site. The Fire Department is also concerned that the narrower road incorporating the sidewalk will impede emergency access in addition to presenting a safety hazard to pedestrians on the site. There is limited guest parking on the site and none is available along NE 3rd which could lead to vehicles being parked on the narrow internal roadway. CONCLUSIONS: 1. It seems that any development of the subject site is predicated on the granting of the three variances that the applicant has requested. If those variances are not appropriate,then the proposal cannot move forward with the proposed manufactured housing park. If there is not a viable proposal to develop the subject site with manufactured housing,then the site should not be reclassified. As staff has noted,the current R-10 zoning would already support manufactured housing. There is little reason to reclassify the site without a showing that the City would gain from such a reclassification. In other words,there is little point in reviewing the other elements of the proposal including the rezone request and the overall manufactured home park proposal if the variance relief requested is not granted. Therefore,this review will begin with an analysis of the variance requests. Blueberry Hill Rezone Appeal and Rezone Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-019,AAD LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H March 22, 1999 Page 14 Variances 2. Variances may be granted when the property satisfies all the conditions described in part below. In order for a variance to be approved each one of the criteria must be met. Satisfying one of the criterion without satisfying each of the other criteria means that a variance must be denied. The criteria that must be satisfied are: a. The applicant suffers undue hardship caused by special circumstances such as: the size, shape,topography, or location where code enforcement would deprive the owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by others similarly situated; b. The granting of the variance would not materially harm either the public welfare or other property in the vicinity; c. The approval will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other property in the vicinity; and d. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject site. The applicant's property does not appear ripe for the variances requested. 3. There is no undue hardship created by the size, shape or topography of the subject site. The parcel has some topographic relief along its western margin, but this topography does not constrain the proposed lots. The topography merely separates the proposed recreation areas from the residential area of the site. In addition,the applicant already proposes importing fill materials to level portions of the subject site. Any topographical issues were created by the applicant or his predecessors' in interest and cannot be used to justify approval of a variance. Finally,the relief of reduced lot size, reduced road width and elimination of RV parking has nothing to do with the topography of the subject site. The applicant wishes to develop more smaller lots to accommodate additional housing and not because of any constraints inherent in the subject site. 4. The applicant is clear. The request for the variances is to reduce the cost of developing the subject site and thereby potentially reduce the monthly rents on the subject site. If this were a valid ground for approving a variance, any developer who wanted to provide "affordable" housing would only have to ask and they would also be entitled to reduce lot size and roadway widths and eliminate any of the other requirements, like RV parking in this case, as well as open space, landscaping and setbacks that increase development costs. As staff and the City Attorney noted in the SEPA appeal,these are wide- ranging policy issues. Policy should not be set by applying for and granting variances. The City particularly modified its ordinances to provide more spacious, more modern looking and functioning mobile home parks. 5. The applicant's assertion that the proposed 37 foot wide lots can accommodate single-wide mobile homes from the current Lake Terrace Park and even newly manufactured units does not provide justification to reduce the code mandated lots widths. Similarly,the fact that 30 foot wide or narrower roads were used in the older mobile home park and maybe even in King County, does not provide any grounds for reducing the mandated roadway width. There must be a constraint that justifies changing code requirements. Just because something can or could work with a lesser standard does not mean that existing standards can be changed by variance. As for the RV parking requirements, again there Blueberry Hill Rezone Appeal and Rezone Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-019,AAD LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H March 22, 1999 Page 15 does not appear to be any justification to modify the requirements of providing one RV stall for each 10 residential lots. The applicant has not demonstrated in any fashion that a hardship exists due to lot size, shape or topography which prevents providing the required RV parking. The assertion that current residents of Lake Terrace park don't need such an amenity does not justify changing the requirements. Nothing limits tenancy to solely those residents and other residents or future residents may need those RV stalls. There is no justification in possibly forcing them to offsite locations for those services. More than likely, RV's would be crowded onto the subject site, potentially hampering emergency access and circulation. 6. Approval of the variances for lot size and road width could jeopardize public safety. The homes, some of which meet less stringent fire safety standards than now exist,would be located closer together on narrower lots. In addition, narrower lots could lead to crowding vehicles closer to those homes or adjacent homes. The normal somewhat wider lots provide for additional setbacks that can slow the spread of fire. Similarly,the proposed narrower road that incorporates a sidewalk within the possible driving surface can compromise pedestrian safety. The narrower road may also lead to blocking since parking might occur on these narrower circulation lanes. 7. Since there are no real constraints that justify approving the variances the applicant has requested, approval of the variances would result in granting the applicant a special privilege to basically overdevelop the subject site in a manner others would not be permitted. Other properties of similar size and similarly situated would be bound by the provisions of the Code. There is no reason to extend a special privilege to the applicant. 8. The subject site can be developed in a reasonable fashion without any variance relief. Therefore, any variance would be more than necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject site. The only issue is that the applicant would like to develop the site with more lots than the proposed zoning would support, supposedly to accommodate those displaced by the redevelopment of the Lake Terrace property. As noted by staff,there are not 69 residents from that other site who would relocate here. And eventually,this site would revert to an entirely different tenant mix. There is no justification for such relief. 9. This office does not ignore the noble attempt by the applicant to provide affordable housing or locations for those with older mobile homes,but some of the applicant's desires can only be achieved with changes to existing code and ordinances. As noted by staff in the land use application review and the City Attorney in the SEPA appeal of mitigation conditions,the Code has some clear requirements. Among those requirements for developing the site are paying appropriate mitigation fees and meeting code requirements or meeting the very precise and exacting standards necessary to procure a variance or variances. The site does not suffer any undue or harsh constraints. Asking the City to vary its code in this case is inappropriate. There are other ways the applicant can make provisions for those displaced including using other social programs. Modifying the zoning on an ad hoc basis is inappropriate and could lead to unprecedented openings to vary code provisions intended to govern development and assure residents of the consistency expected in land use decision-making. Rezone and Manufactured Housing Proposal 10. Since the variances are inappropriate and the entire proposal was predicated on a particular layout that would be entirely undone by rejecting the variances,the rest of the proposal cannot be evaluated. While staff recommended approval of the rezone request and the mobile home park,they made no suggestions on how the park would be accommodated if each of the lots were as wide as required or Blueberry Hill Rezone Appeal and Rezone Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-019,AAD LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H March 22, 1999 Page 16 how to accommodate the wider roadway. Rejecting the variances means too many other changes which requires too much conjecture. Therefore,this office would have to recommend that the City Council deny the rezone request. This office also must deny the manufactured housing proposal since as submitted, it cannot be approved. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should deny the requested reclassification since there is not a valid land use proposal for the subject site. DECISION: The variances for lot width, road width and RV parking are denied. The manufactured housing proposal is not approved. ORDERED THIS 22nd day of March, 1999. \(CP\J-L- FRED J. KAU AN HEARING E INER TRANSMITTED THIS 22nd day of March, 1999 to the following parties of record: Steve Harer Peter Rosen Sheikh Hasan 11326 Rainier Ave S 1055 S Grady Way P.O. Box 2019 Seattle, WA 98178 Renton, WA 98055 Ocala, FL 34478 Ken Spencer Bob Murray David Halinen 11661 SE 56th 4010 Lk Wash. Blvd 10500 NE 8th,#1900 Bellevue, WA 98006 Kirkland, WA 98033 Bellevue, WA 98004 Chuck Duffy Neil Watts Doug Hobkirk 1055 S Grady Way 1055 S Grady Way PO Box 22167 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98122-0167 Larry Brown T&E Investments 261 SW 41st Dolores Petterson Renton, WA 98055 353 Vuemont Place Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 22nd day of March, 1999 to the following: Blueberry Hill Rezone Appeal and Rezone Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-019,AAD LUA98-171,MHP,R,V-H March 22, 1999 Page 17 Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman, Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson, Development Services Director Chuck Duffy, Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann, Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson, Econ. Dev. Administrator South County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,April 5, 1999. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 16,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. - " ------•-•-- -------- - -- •-• ___ ________. _______ . . _ . . __ ..._ . . ,__._ . , I •I t • lit —---- ". • • ri_r_i_.- i ....- . .2. Viz 1 1 vim 111 ., '. ' e• "Ift s 4 --- , .,_,..----Ale 4 tt "1141.211:._5-1 .,;-A7:____ ......,,,„:---„,l's::: .:-. •- ..wrt. ...„„e . 0 ,.... --7" - Cl 4 'c41. • "•-• CC .\ It. ___........fisadfEl:(14°11.14TH C . . tic ti 4 l'., :4 •••• \ ' litqlkill tr:gi 2 . 1 Snit Ing NIUM i_i! il.i.?., • .. . -4: It.ir3 71 --• l'''. s t c, 4(1` Y.&. .' •-•'' ir------------- .--`- '---7-: ."-- pi'''..„.----;----..._.—_--41rH'.z---"—i--.z.----,.——r.----=- ---1—L--- ----7,—.—---- 2=• sor..‘1,1 . • • ........ r. . ... 4., tz. . _-6-c..---.,-,;-,- 1,...-‘—t.4.x.'"-- .:• '' ..• I , .., ,,, . •••• .....:.:/. ,s,.......2L.1. S' .... .••,t'l No.e.9‘ '0'74.- .'.. I .1.-1)-ic-.,.,S -oil' ...-- • I DI • • '.• • • 1 12) , . 13i . ..• : , sP 7I4•711. 7 • ..:1•4 . '• ...••• 11:! t.) 4 ra'• 1."' - •:. *.• • 1 1 131 •i . 141 ' . ___ ...I ••1.0.0.1 ; : •--• 4...:. •,. ..,,, /, ........,..........<:r- - V....011AILl Y 11. 1 1 . '1 I • ' ,V*7 , .•':,.... / i 14 si got / , 11,..4 11.. * •..r.'''''-..."7 ..,..... '-; 40 • 51. 1 1 _ ...•• 1 I. ''''••••••''..•'''.. . 4. / / .. •• ----- - I . ....... .0 115 ° •I •i / /' i/I ' . ,.. C /''' Imp GuLimi 1. ow4C• (Otimiv .I/ • / ' II ------.• st tO 41. I ti?os.4. i. • r a liAt ar.* ...,./."........ . 160,::.'1 / • ii. ; ..... 1 . ' 0 f- --_-—-----.---- / 1 / I // A i 1 5 • 14 0%1 11( LI • . // ' .1' / • ' ' ' . ../ / .• / . .__-. \ . ' . ,„ / ,/,',1• /. "'•// .4,":,:j. . , , .,..;'... 0 (i• -.. ..'•'• Il- -,!,,, , ....1z-_ .:.;,,-.-ao - --------/----'-+ --/-", - .. . . 1.,,... ci ::.1 5.1:I:':1:.1 .‘ - . — • :i -:•.- 1 .//:.1 t. .:1..: 3 . • / /ct, .•:: . i : \ . .•. , ........ • , .. / V /'4:,s/ :%::".'•• .. 1 i \ 0 zoo 4.•• . 49 ..N.,.• i' /s • •. ..... i' -• -' t ' 2rtext rniiiewl 1 s* / /' / it/ ,'• . ,,-,.• ki• • ,, .f. 3:'.. ' / f /0 .. , II I. ,'• S SC ALC /i ZOO' ' 4. i ., 1. / I •/ . .• I. ., .• .::.....1:':'' ‘1 ."'•••••\ ' ,(1....1 ( C 0*A110% 4:71 LC , ' .• • i 401(.1.01....1•4 40:1 AL • 01,' ..• / • • 1 /. //I .1 .• .I// i 1 • ,/ el6ig_____±:32._----------a•Lrc z011eVacie_O v (?),/,6•AarA/Z /41,4.? • t . X64,7 et,c,/, /4./.4 SA A. • ,:.. ! .s . .• ,', / i/... , I 1;I 1 NN. .,.,.. •-.:.-- / .•::-',. 1 V.I. ei I .-..":--.. •..-.':-". ;,' / i " / '. . 7.63 0 .-- M CD • 0 . m l< --, z - m r co 0 ) cj co z ...5. . • = ., (; { , :rs k • _ r4 Japgnese 6/:ek Ririe or •i9riiva/anJ` : • r ,, y',• , v O ,0pre--- Strawberry Tree(arbutus) 4' a.C, Siu o c.Cum ;:O �+p 1 - denote % 5,� 1 ►`1 cover S ground Jun/Per N 3(d 1` I °r• sr. Johns /cam/f 1 . 2' o.c. o..jM 10. s Lfi �p• r �� 39 4 La/Tdscap//7g w 43 bj N ¢O • L.; Min I S8: `12'42-E 135.58'.,o T •r.13 fr,..12,.6 •:,-*" Mr'-lemI 6,' CEO�R -FENCE MI Ita IIMI • 111111 GB .1. 1 G7 I ma© a 65 32 J r .. .. 31 rs: N q © 50 6 3 }\ . 0 29 N 9 5/ 62 P • i -- Z8 O -- --- /0 52 6/ 27 4 i ro A c,i 1.1 40 ,,___ ___L____-...: ki i S4 59 Tice ✓a • Ikj. a Nedyes n;oer or IIII n eyai'va/an/) 58 2`� I ryPica/ Space I /_= 30'IIMPF M AI 22 n /7 /B /9 20 Z/ .ZHNDSCRP/N6 PI RA/ N89'06'38"W 452.00� • C3/ueberrcy �// iNobi/e /mane PacK , CIT OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman • February 16, 1999 Mr. J. Steve Harer Bryn Mawr Properties, Inc. 11326 Rainier Avenue S Seattle, WA 98178 Re: Appeal of ERC's Determination re Blueberry Hill Rezone Appeal File No. LUA99-019,AAD Dear Mr. Harer: • We received your appeal dated February 12, 1999, and the hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday, February 23, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Should you have any further questions,please contact this office. Sincerely,in L- 4 Marilyn K. Moses Hearing Examiner's Secretary cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Peter Rosen, Project Manager 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 T i n�nn.���,�;��SSW..runv�InA mntcri�l Ofl,n.c1 rnnm imn. ,► • CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MEMORANDUM Date: February 16, 1999 To: Peter Rosen From: Marilyn Moses Re: Appeal of ERC's Decision re Blueberry Hill Rezone LUA98-171,MHP,R,V Appeal File No. LUA99-019,AAD The attached appeal letter was timely received from J. Steve Harer of Bryn Mawr Properties, and the appeal will be held on Tuesday, February 23, 1999, prior to the rezone hearing. Mr. Kaufman is out of the office until Monday, February 22. cc: Mayor Tanner Jay Covington Larry Warren ioNgmE FEB I 5 1999 11 Maul February 12, 1999 in c ,nc , +! 1NER CITY OF RENTON Hearing Examiner F E B 1 2 i999 City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way RECEIVED Renton, WA 98055 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Re: Appeal to ERC report on January 26, 1999 Determination of Non Significance To Whom It May Concern, I would like to appeal mitigation measures# 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 12 of the ERC Determination of Non Significance. ■ I appeal#5, 6, & 7 on the grounds that I am moving an existing low-income resident mobile home community in the City of Renton. This community has already paid taxes and fees to the City for approximately 40 years. These taxes have come to the city from both real estate taxes and personal property taxes from the mobile homes themselves. These existing mobile home sites are in the city and are not providing new residents per se. The City is getting impact fees on 187 new units that are replacing these 69 units. • I appeal item#8 as there are communities in King County successfully using the 5- foot painted walkway successfully. The existing community roads range from 20' widths to 25' widths and have worked successfully the past 40 years. The new community will have roadways as described that are 10' wider. A separated concrete walkway will subtract from the tenant's yard and give a more squeezed look to the lots. • I appeal item#9 regarding screening the mobile home community so that people driving up Renton Avenue won't have to look at this affordable housing community. I propose then that the fence be taken from the property line and put behind the homes. • I appeal item#12 as this is a management issue that is handled by the rules and regulations and not a covenant with the land. There are storage facilities nearby. RV storage will not be allowed in this community. Respectfully Submitted, l � J. eve Harer 11326 Rainier Avenue South • Seattle,Washington 98178 • (206)772-3000 • FAX(206)772-4647 • CITY RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Jesse Tanner, gay r January 28, '1999 Mr. Steve Harer 11326 Rainier Avenue South Seattle, WA 98172 SUBJECT: Blueberry Hill Rezone Project No. LUA-98-171,ECF,MHP,R,V Dear Mr. Harer: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project. The ERC, on January 26, 1999, issued a threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. See the enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM February 15, 199g. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8•-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on February 23, 1999, at 9:00 AM to consider the proposal. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, (I� (pc .,. VV � Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: T&E Investments/Owner Enclosure DNSMLTR.DOC 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material.20%post consumer NOTES RECEIPT DATE NO. RECEIVED FROM J Skyer�ifet/te4.. ADDRESS n pp g7s,no FOR (%�� tn W i7 - ! D -♦'7/ ACCOUNT HOW PAID AMT.OF ACCOUNT CASH ANT. CHECK PAID 1.15 00 BALANCE MONEY BY7 DUE ORDER F 01998 REDIFORM®8LBo2